Hi, On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 06:42, Christopher Piggott <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm maybe I can use the "UninterpretedOption" message to do this. > Would something like this work? > > message ChrisMessage { > option javadoc = "This is an object representing Chris's Message"; > repeated int32 field1 = 1 [javadoc="This is a javadoc for field 1]; > repeated int32 field2 = 2 [javadoc="This is a javadoc for field 2]; > } >
This javadoc option looks too much of a clutter to me and decreases the readability of the proto file. I'd rather have the protoc compiler understand regular JavaDoc like comments that make it into the meta data - from there the corresponding language specific comments can be generated. My suggestion is to support two types of comments. One in front of the field or message, potentially multiline and starting with slash-doublestar, much like JavaDoc /** This is some field doc * that could potentially span multiple * lines */ repeated int32 field1 = 1; .. and a end-of-line comment that is on the same line of a field declaration to save space: repeated int32 field2 = 2; // some field doc describing field in same line. (this is what is missing from standard JavaDoc and makes field comments there 100% more space consuming ) Both of these can be unambiguously associated with the corresponding fields. I have a low prioritized entry on my personal TODO list to add at some point, but I am happy if someone else wants to work on this ;) -h -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
